JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

The digital revolution is vastly transforming healthcare and clinical teaching and learning. Relative to other medical fields, the interdisciplinary fields of speech-language pathology (SLP), phoniatrics, and otolaryngology have been slower on the uptake of digital tools and resources for therapeutic, teaching, and learning purposes – a process recently expedited by the COVID-19 pandemic. While many current teaching and learning tools appear to have restricted or institution-only access, there are many openly accessible tools that have gone largely unexplored. To find, use, and evaluate such resources, it is important to first be familiar with structures, concepts, and formats of existing digital tools.

Objective:

The aim of this descriptive study was to investigate current digital learning tools and resources in SLP, phoniatrics, and otolaryngology. Differences in content, learning goals, and digital formats between academic-level-learners and clinical-professional-learners were explored.

Methods:

A systematic search of generic and academic search engines (e.g., Google, PubMed), the App Store, Google Play, and websites of established SLP, phoniatrics, and otolaryngology organizations was conducted. Using specific search terms and detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria, relevant digital teaching and learning resources were identified. These were organized and analyzed by learner group, content matter, learning goals and architectures, and digital formats.

Results:

A total of 125 digital resources were identified. Within- and between-learner-group differences were investigated. Content-wise, the largest proportion of tools for academic-level-learners pertained to anatomy and physiology (28%) and for clinical-professional-learners, to diagnostic evaluation (25.4%). Between groups, the largest differences were observed for anatomy and physiology (69.9% academic-level-learners vs. 30.2% clinical-professional-learners) and professional issues (28.6% vs. 71.4%). Regarding learning goals, most tools for academic-level-learners targeted performance of a procedural skill (51%) and for clinical-professional-learners, receptive information acquisition (84.6%). Academic-level-learners had more tools supporting higher level learning goals in comparison to clinical-professional-learners, specifically for performing procedural skills (76% vs. 24%) and strategic skills (80% vs. 20%). Visual formats (e.g., pictures/diagrams) dominated across both learner groups. For academic-level-learners, this was followed by interactive formats, especially dynamic apps (22%). For clinical-professional-learners, verbal formats comprised the second largest proportion of tools, particularly text-based resources (24.2%). The greatest between-group differences were observed for interactive formats (68.2% vs. 31.8%).

Conclusions:

This investigation provides initial insight into openly accessible tools across SLP, phoniatrics, and otolaryngology and their organizing structures. Digital tools in these fields addressed ranging content, though tools for academic-level-learners tend to be greater in number, target higher-level learning goals, and have more interactive formats. Crucial next steps include investigating actual use of such tools in practice and student and professional attitudes to better understand how such resources can be improved or incorporated into current and future learning milieus.